Betrayed with a Kiss

The Judas Kiss

Judas and the mercy of Christ

Jesus Christ died for your sins. The Son of God was whipped, beaten and crucified; he took upon Himself the sins of the world that you might have eternal life by believing in Him. Today, Catholics in Mexico and all over the world celebrate the crucifixion of Jesus. Here in San Miguel de Allende the Procession of Silence reenacts the stations of the cross and the suffering of Christ with a holy parade. Thousands participate dressed as Romans, the people of Jerusalem, and the holy family and followers of Jesus.

But what of Judas? Is the mercy of Christ so magnanimous that it extends to all, except for the fallen disciple who betrayed him? The name of Judas is synonymous with that of "traitor" in many languages. Dante fixes him in the deepest circle of hell along with Brutus and Cassius who betrayed Caesar, their king. 

According to Dante's version, Satan is a giant demon, frozen in ice in the ninth  the center of Hell. Satan has three faces and a pair of bat-like wings affixed under each chin. As Satan beats his wings, he creates a cold wind which continues to freeze the ice surrounding him, and the other sinners in the Ninth Circle. The winds he creates are felt throughout the other circles of Hell. Each of his three mouths chews on Judas, Brutus, and Cassius. 

Once, when I was in Nabadwip-dhāma, sitting at the feet of my spiritual preceptor, His Divine Grace Bhakti Rakshaka Sridhar dev Goswāmi Mahārāja, he commented as follows on the position of Judas: 


"Do you know of Judas in the Christian teachings?

When Jesus was praying in the garden before his crucifixion, Judas approached him with the scribes and priests in order to betray him, identifying that Messiah with a kiss. Suddenly, Jesus cast his glance towards Judas in such an impressive way – he penetrated Judas. 

And Judas thought to himself, “I am caught, I shall be responsible for Jesus Christ’s demise,” but still Jesus’ vision to me was something more like: “I am exploiting you Judas. It is not that you are exploiting me, rather I am utilising you as a traitor to show the greatness of my life to the future world.”

Jesus had already said at the last supper, “Amongst these twelve disciples one will betray me.” He knew. Judas had been there then and Jesus had cast his glance towards Judas. 

Then later, when Judas came with the soldiers and scribes to the Garden of Gethsemene to capture him, Jesus had cast his glance towards Judas once again and was thinking, “You think you are exploiting me for some money but I am exploiting you for eternity. You have to stand out as a sinful person against me, I knew you were a traitor, but I did not disclose you. I still took you within my group of followers knowing full well that I am exploiting you.” 

The look of Jesus was like that.

Judas was crazed. He threw away the sack of silver. He ran to the authorities and said, “I have committed the worst sin, I cannot tolerate it!”

Judas’ energy was drunk, his spirit was drawn. Just like in Jujitsu, when someone attacks the opposition with great force, but the opposition suddenly withdraws, causing the attacking person to fall on their face – Judas found himself in that sort of position. 

Jesus was exchanging love for betrayal. It was the sort of love that disarmed and sent Judas mad. “I treated him so wickedly, yet his look is not one of vindictiveness but of infinite gratitude. That sort of look Jesus cast upon me.”
In the perfect vision, in the full-fledged consideration, every atom is helping the Pastimes of Krishna. Whether it is direct or indirect – and although it seems to be indirect at present – a deeper vision will reveal that it is coming towards direct service."

(you may find the entire transcript here http://www.sevaashram.org/media-resources/written-word/math-publications/Srila-Sridhar-Maharaj/Absolute-Harmony.pdf:)

Śridhara Mahārāja went on to explain that in a certain sense the sacrifice of Judas is greater than the sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus sacrifices his life for our sins, but gains eternal paradise. But without Judas, Jesus is not betrayed, there is no crucifixion, there is no sacrifice and no one is redeemed for their sins. The sacrifice made by Judas is a key part of our redemption. But what does he gain by his sacrifice? Eternal hell. Jesus sacrificed himself for us and gains eternal heaven and exaltation. Judas betrays Jesus as part of the divine plan and gets eternal hell and calumny.

I always wondered why Judas is considered as a disciple of Jesus, if in the end he betrays him. But in a sense, Judas is the greatest disciple, since his act of apparent betrayal triggers the crucifixion and the redemption of our sins. But what of the mercy of Jesus? Is there no redemption for Judas?  Judas is ready to go to hell forever in order to bring about God's plan for our redemption. When common sinners, liars, drunkards, murderers, and cheats are all forgiven by the mercy of Christ, why not Judas whose own actions bring about our salvation?

Betrayed with a kiss

In a sense Judas is also the greatest disciple, since he risks hell for the greater glory of the saviour, while denying salvation for himself. His act is even more generous. 

In the Hindu tradition the Mahābhārata tells us the story of the Kurus and the Pandavas. The Kurus perform despicable acts in the name of dharma, while the Pandavas, backed by Krishna, sometimes subvert dharma in the cause of devotion to God. At the end of the story, when the war is finished, we find the Kurus in heaven, for they served dharma. The Pandavas go to hell for having violated dharma. While some may believe that this section is a later interpolation by another hand, not that of Vyāsa, others feel that this defines the very service attitude of a surrendered soul: Better to serve God in hell, than to enjoy the fruits of dharma in heaven.

True bhaktas or surrendered souls will perform their service in divine love even in the most condemned situation, rather than to live comfortably in the mode of goodness following the formalities of religion.

Many devotees on pilgrimage see the temple of Lord Jagannatha and contrive to enter the temple to see the deity although his darshan is restricted by the temple's acolytes to certain Hindu caste members.

But Haridāsa Ṭhākura, the greatest example of the holy name made no such attempt. He knew that he was to be excluded on account of his birth, and that his section of society was prohibited from entering. He absorbed himself in the holy name. He preferred to die taking the holy name, even while being whipped through the markets of Puri, than to betray his faith.

 Haridāsa Ṭhākura is perhaps the most Christ-like of devotees in that he was whipped and beaten for his love of God. But he preferred to serve the name of Krishna, even while tortured, than to live his life according to the mundane laws of religion of his day.

I'm working on a painting of Chaitanya Mahāprabhu as I write this. 

"Śrī Chaitanya" by Michael Dolan, B.V. Mahayogi

His arms are up-raised as he dances by the holy river, singing the name of God-Krishna, followed by the kirtan players as they visit the sacred places. Mahāprabhu implores us to follow his example and take the holy name. 

The up-raised arms reminded me of another image I had seen somewhere:

Christ Crucified by Velazquez

 The pose is strikingly similar. But in contrast to the God who died for our sins, who was crucified and resurrected, Śrī Chaitanya danced for our sins: he demonstrates the joy of divine love without the insipid promises of salvation. Śrīdhara Mahāraja taught us that renunciation, liberation, salvation are dry things. They evolve from a negative point of view. Devotion and divine love refer to the live of sacrifice and surrender, of dedication. And that may be found in service. So better to serve Krishna in hell or in a hellish situation here in this material world, than to get salvation in emptiness or with religion in heaven. 

Bhakti Sudhira Goswami and I  faced a lot of opposition in the old days of Guardian of Devotion Press. Back in 1982 when we first published a 32 page pamphlet called "Search for Śrī Kṛṣṇā" we ignited a fire-storm of indignation, not only from so-called followers of Krishna Consciousness who objected to any printed books not sanctioned by their committee, but also from Christians.

When we returned to the mom and pop printing press who gave us a good price on our initial printing and ordered 3,000 more copies, the man behind the counter shook his hand. He picked up the pamphlet and handed it back to us as if it would burn his hands. 

"We can't print this." He said.

"Why not?"

"I'm sorry boys, but we read what it says about Jesus. You'll have to go somewhere else."

I remember I was chagrined when we got back out to the parking lot. After all they had given us the best price. It would be difficult to get it printed for less. We were out at least another thousand dollars.

Goswāmī Mahārāja, for his part was laughing. He was besides himself with joy. I looked at him and said, "Mahārāja. What's so funny? This is going to cost us."

He said, "Don't you get it? This means we've really got something. If they won't print it, it means we're hitting on something. It struck a nerve. We'll double the run. Let's find another printer and we'll print twice as many. We have to finish this book."

But what was it that upset them?

THE SEARCH FOR SRI KRISHNA: CHAPTER SEVEN

Beyond Christianity

In the following conversation, Srila Sridhar Maharaj compares theistic beliefs with some Christian students from America.

Christian: Can you explain the Vaisnava viewpoint of Christianity?

Sridhar Maharaj: Christianity is incomplete Vaisnavism—not full-fledged, but the basis of devotional theism. We find the principle of "Die to live" there to a certain extent, at least physically. The Christians say that the ideal shown by Jesus is self-sacrifice. In our consideration, however, that is not full-fledged theism, but only the basis. It is an unclear, vague conception of Godhead: "We are for Him." But how much? And in what shape, in what attitude? All these things are unexplained and unclear in Christianity. Everything is hazy, as if seen from far off. It does not take any proper shape. The cover is not fully removed, allowing us to come face to face with the object of our service. The conception of service to God is there, and a strong impetus to attain that, so the foundation is good, but the structure over the foundation is unclear, vague, and imperfect.

Christian: Christians like the ideas of surrender, service, and giving everything to God.

Sridhar Maharaj: Yes, that is common. But surrender to whom?

Christian: Christians say that Jesus is the only way.

Sridhar Maharaj: Yes, and his way is "Die to live," but what for? What is our positive attainment? What is our positive engagement in the Lord's service? We must not only submit in gratefulness to the highest authority, but we must have a direct connection with Him, and cent percent engagement in His service. Simply going on in our own way, praying, "Oh God, give us our bread," going to the church once a week is not sufficient. Twenty-four hour engagement is possible in full-fledged theism. God can engage us twenty-four hours a day—we must attain that position: full engagement with Him. Everything else is subordinate to that position.

ADAM AND EVE: FORCED TO LABOR

Christian: There are some Christian traditions that are very similar to Krishna consciousness.

Sridhar Maharaj: They are very akin in their foundation. We agree that we must sacrifice everything for God. But who is He? And who am I? And what is our relationship? Christianity gives us only a hazy conception.

In the Christian conception, when Adam and Eve were surrendered, they had no problems in life. But then they tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, calculation of self-interest, and they fell, and were forced to live a life of labor. Only a general idea of our relationship with God is given there, but when we have to define in detail the characteristics of God, and in which relationships to approach Him, Christianity gives us only a hazy idea.

Once some Christian priests told our guru maharaj that madhurya rasa (conjugal relationship with God) is also found within Christianity. In the middle ages, there was a fashion amongst the Christians to consider Christ as a bridegroom, and some parable is also given where Lord Jesus Christ is considered as a bridegroom. So, they said that madhurya rasa, the consort relationship, is also found within Christianity. Prabhupad told them, "That is with His Son, with His devotee; not with God." Son means guru, the deliverer.

FATHER, SON, ANDGHOST

Their conception of God is the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Ghost. The Ghost is perhaps considered to have the highest position. If it is so, then Christianity ends in brahmavada nirvisesa. Do you follow?

Christian: Yes. I think you explained before that Brahman means the impersonal aspect of God's existence.

Sridhar Maharaj: God the Father means God the creator. God the Son is guru. And God as Ghost perhaps holds the supreme position in Christianity: over the Father conception, and over the Son conception. If that is the case, then their understanding goes to impersonal Brahman.

I was told that once in a drama in Germany, they had to show the figure of God, so in some high position in a balcony they put a figure of grave nature with a gray beard, commanding from there. God the Father was shown like that. That is their idea: the Fatherhood of Godhead, a gray-bearded, old man as God. But from the consideration of rasa and ananda, ecstasy, God should be the center of all different relationships, including sonhood, and consorthood.

To conceive of God as our Father is an incomplete understanding, for parents are also servitors. He must be in the center; not in any extremity of the whole. He is not simply watching over the whole; the conception of Krishna is that of God in the center. Of all approaches to God, the approach for a loving relationship is supreme. The intensity of that relationship is to be considered, and God must be at the center of all loving relationships. Anandam brahmano vidvan. Ananda is the most precious thing ever discovered. And the full representation of the highest ananda should be considered as the highest absolute which can attract everyone: not by power, not by force, but by charm. The center of all attraction is Krishna. His attraction is by beauty, by charm, and by love—and not by coercion and force. That is the Krishna conception of Godhead.

Christian: Christians are afraid to go beyond Jesus, because Jesus has warned us about cheaters.

Sridhar Maharaj: I am not speaking about the Christians; I am speaking about Jesus, who has given the ideals of Christianity. I am speaking about the principles of Jesus. He has given some understanding by installments, but not full knowledge. We agree about the strong foundation of theism. Jesus was crucified because he said, "Everything belongs to my Father. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is His." So, the foundation is very good; it is laudable, but that is only the first installment of the theistic conception.

Who is my Lord? What is His nature? Who am I? What is my inner self, and what is my connection with Him? How can I live continuously in His memory and service? The conception that we are meant for Him, designed and destined for Him, is laudable, but it must be clarified. We must attain the highest position. All these things are absent in Christianity. Only sacrifice for the Lord is given, and that is all right, it is the basic necessity of the soul. But after that, what is to be achieved? They are silent.

BEYOND JESUS

Christian: They are afraid to go beyond Jesus.

Sridhar Maharaj: Yes, but there is so much grace, so much love in divinity that God can sit on our lap and embrace us. A much more intimate connection is unfolded in Vaisnavism. But if we are afraid to cross the fundamental advice of Jesus, then we become sahajiyas (imitationists). We must risk everything for our Lord and make our position firm in His service. We must die to live. And what is living? We have to analyze what real life is. And if without dying, we want to drag God into our fleshy play, then we become sahajiyas, imitationists.

We must cross the threshold given by Jesus. He has declared, "Die to live." The Lord's company is so valuable to us that we must risk everything for Him. This material achievement is nothing; it is all poison. We must have no attraction for it. We must be ready to leave everything, all our material prospects and aspirations, including our body, for Him. God is great. But what is His greatness? What is my position? How can I engage myself in His service twenty-four hours a day? Here, Jesus is silent.

We receive no specific program from the Christians at this stage, so Vaisnavism comes to our heart's relief, to satisfy our inner necessity, whatever it may be. Our inner thirst will be quenched there. You may be conscious or unconscious of the many demands within you, but they will reach full satisfaction in its most beautiful form there alone. It is not only that from far off we shall show God some reverential salute, but we can have Him in a very intimate way. The ideal of an intimate loving connection with God has been given by Vaisnavism, especially by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, by Srimad-Bhagavatam, and in Vrndavana, the land of Krishna.

The feeling of possessing anything here in the material world cannot be real; it is a perverted reflection, but that feeling must be present in the original world, otherwise what is its origin? From where do the different feelings of necessity within us come? They must be present in the causal world, for everything is emanating from Krishna. So, the hankering of every atom of our body, mind, and soul will receive its greatest fulfillment there. This understanding is given by Vaisnavism, by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, bySrimad-Bhagavatam, and by Krishna in the Bhagavad-gita.

BHAGAVAD-GITA: ITS HISTORY AND TEACHINGS

Christian: I've heard of the Bhagavad-gita. What is the history of its origin?

Sridhar Maharaj: In the Bhagavad-gita, Krishna tells Arjuna, "What I am saying to you now is not a new thing. I have already told this to Surya, the sun-god, and he delivered it to Manu, the father of man. In this way, this knowledge descended in disciplic succession, and by the influence of time it was finished. Again, I am repeating that ancient knowledge to you."

This refers to karma-yoga: "Don't care about the result, good or bad; go on with your duty. Then you can have general peace of mind."

Christian: What is the message of the Bhagavad-gita?

Sridhar Maharaj: There are different stages of education imparted in Bhagavad-gita: bhakti-yoga, karma-yoga, jnana-yoga, astanga-yoga, so many different layers of theism, but pure devotional theism begins where Krishna says, sarva-dharman parityajya "Give up your affinity to all other activities, whether religious or nonreligious, and wholly surrender to Me. Don't try to push your demands on Me, but ask Me what will be most beneficial for you. And what shall I do on your behalf? Fully surrender to Me, and I will give Myself to you."

"All these other methods and their prospects are more or less effective and valuable, but don't aspire after anything but Me. That will be your highest prospect; to want Me, to have Me, to live in Me, to do what I say, to enter into My own personal family in my private life. That will be your highest attainment. Don't aspire for anything else from Me. The comparative study of all religious aspirations will show that the highest inner necessity may be satisfied by entrance into My personal private dealings."

Christian: Christians think that if we are to be sincere, we should follow the Bible. We take very literally the word of Christ.

Sridhar Maharaj: Yes, according to one's capacity he may be enlisted in a particular class. Some will go to Christianity, and after finishing that, if their hankering is still unsatisfied, they will seek somewhere else, thinking, "What is God? I want to know more perfectly."

In this regard, I can give one example: there was a Professor Nixon in England. He went to fight against Germany in the First World War, on the French side. As he was flying over the German lines, his airplane was hit, and began to fall. He saw that the plane would fall on the German lines. When I met him here in India, he told me, "At that time, I prayed, 'If there is any God, let Him save me, and I promise that if I do not die in this plane crash, I will go to search after Him. I will devote my whole life in search of Him."'

The plane crashed, and when Professor Nixon regained consciousness, he found that he was behind the French lines, in a hospital in France. At that time, He thought to himself, "There is God! He has heard my last prayer." When his wounds were healed, he went straight to England to see some churchmen. He told them, "I want to search after God, and engage myself twenty-four hours a day in the cause of His service. I want to see Him face to face."

BISHOPS: "GO TO INDIA"

He saw many clergymen and even some bishops, and they ultimately advised him, "If you want to see God face to face, then go to India. We cannot recommend such a process to you. But we have heard that in India there are yogis who internally connect with the Lord in the heart. You may try your fortune there." So, he came here to India, where he met the Vice-Chancellor of Lucknow University. In talking with him, Professor Nixon met the Vice-Chancellor's wife, who was a Gaudiya Vaisnava, a devotee of Mahaprabhu. He was so much charmed by her advice that he accepted her as his guru. Finally he took sannyas (the renounced order of life), and his name became Swami Krishna Prema. He established a temple here in India, and preached about bhagavata-dharma, and Mahaprabhu.

He made a comparative study of all religions, beginning from Christianity, and gradually came to Vaisnavism, attracted by Mahaprabhu's gift. One German scholar also said, "In all the religious conceptions of the world, the conception of twenty-four hour engagement with God (astakaliya-lila) has never been given. I have studied all religious theologies, but none could even conceive of twenty-four hour service to the Supreme Lord. It is only given in Srimad-Bhagavatam."

Rupa Goswami has given the scientific representation of Krishna: akhila-rasamrta-murtih. He is the reservoir of all possible pleasures. All possible tendencies for satisfaction that we may feel, and even those that we may not feel are present in Krishna and have their ideal, purest satisfaction with Him alone. He is all-accommodating and all-comprehensive. Whatever satisfaction our inner heart demands can be fulfilled only by Him.

Christian:Some Christians are so much afraid to go beyond the Bible that they will not make a study of other theistic beliefs.

Sridhar Maharaj: According to one's capacity, he will purchase in the market (sve sve 'dhikare ya nistha sa gunah parikirtitah). In the market, there may be valuable things, but the buyer must have some capacity to purchase them. The rsis, the tradesmen of knowledge have also gone so far as to say, "This is the highest. Go no further." Similarly, Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita (3.35), svadharme nid-hanam sreyah para-dharmo bhayavahah: "Don't go ahead— you'll be doomed. Take your stand here; go no further."

Why is such a great warning given to us? Generally our teachers advise us, "Pay full attention here. Only then will you understand everything completely, and your march to the end-point will be sincere and satisfactory. Otherwise, sahajiyaism, imitationism will enter your heart. Do you think that in one leap you can capture the summit of a hill? Impossible. You must march, but your march must be sincere. You must make real progress, not imitative progress." This warning is given at every stage of life. "This is the highest for you. Give your whole attention to this. Don't be absent-minded and haphazard in your study. Engage yourself fully in this lesson, and the next higher stage will come to you automatically."

As a matter of policy, we are told that our present stage of instruction is the highest. When a professor comes to teach a child, he will accept the mentality of the child. He will say, "Only go so far, and no further. This is the final stage; give your whole attention to understanding this point, and when that is finished, then go further." In this way, by gradual installments, knowledge is revealed.

Christian: So, there are different stages for different persons?

Sridhar Maharaj: Bhaktivinoda Thakur has given his decision, in his Tattva-sutra, that although when Bhagavad-gita was spoken to Arjuna, he engaged himself in fighting, had it been Uddhava in place of Arjuna, after hearing the conclusion of Bhagavad-gita where Krishna says, "Give up everything and surrender to Me," Uddhava would have accepted this and gone away from the warfield. Upon hearing the same advice, Arjuna acted in one way, but Uddhava would have acted in another. After hearing the first installment of Krishna's instructions Arjuna tells Krishna in the Bhagavad-gita (3.1-2):

jyayasi cet karmanas te
mata buddhir janardana
tat kim karmani ghore mam
niyojayasi kesava

vyamisreneva vakyena
buddhim mohayasiva me
tad ekam vada niscitya
yena sreyo 'ham apnuyam

"You say that jnana, knowledge, is better than karma, work. Why then do you want to engage me in this dreadful karma of fighting?" Then Krishna said, "You have your capacity in karma: finish your career, and then you can aspire to come to the level of jnana, inquiry into knowledge. It is not a cheap thing to transcend all activity and attainnaiskarmya, freedom from karma. First finish the course of your karma; then you will become free from karma, and gradually you will develop transcendental knowledge and devotion. So, I say, 'Engage yourself in this present fight.' Fighting is not recommended for everyone, but for you, and men of your section."

Christian: In your opinion, what stage of God realization should people be advised to follow?

Sridhar Maharaj: Krishna consciousness should be preached in a general way; and people will come according to their inner response. Some may even come to attack us. The communists will say, "No religious preaching is allowed here. It is all theoretical; you neglect the concrete world, and take the abstract to be everything. By hearing this, the people will suffer, so we won't allow it." That is one stage. Beginning from there, there are so many stages. If you preach to a crowd, those who find a response within their inner hearts will come to you according to the degree of their realization. Their inner demand will bring them in contact with an agent of truth.

Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj went to the West and preached, and so many converted to Krishna consciousness. How was it possible? They were not Gaudiya Vaisnavas, but they felt some inner affinity. While wandering in this world, everyone is gathering some new experience, some new taste. According to the degree of his awakenment, one will respond to a preacher in his own layer. He will find, "Oh! After so long, I see that there is the possibility of an outlet for the urge I found in my heart. There is a plane that can satisfy that aspiration of mine. I must connect with him and inquire of that land of my dreams." In this way, they will come to seek the association of devotees. "Birds of a feather flock together." According to their inner taste, they will come together and go on with their duties in that plane, at that pace, until from there they can go further, to a higher position. Sometimes in the same life one may change his creed and go higher, and sometimes one may wait until his next birth.

Christian: If the quality of preaching is too high, people may be discouraged.

Sridhar Maharaj: It may be too high for one and too near for another. It is not too high for all, for if it was, then how would conversion be possible? So many people are becoming Mohammedans, Christians, and Hindus. All Christians were not born Christians. How were people first attracted to become Christians? There arose in their hearts the hankering for Christianity.

When Acyutananda Swami, the first disciple of Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaj, went to my birthplace here in Bengal, a headmaster asked him, "We are so near and we cannot appreciate the teachings of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu; how is it that from such a far off country, you have come to sacrifice your life for the service of Sri Chaitanyadeva?"

Acyutananda Swami answered, "Brahmanda bhrah-mite kona bhagyavan jiva. We have to acquire this capacity during the course of our wanderings in different positions throughout the creation."

We are wandering from this land to that land, from this species to that species, and in the course of that, we gather some sukrti, pious credits. Ajnata-sukrti means that unknowingly and unconsciously our energy is spent in the service of the Lord, and the reaction comes in the form of some pious credits. And when sukrti is more developed, it becomes jnata-sukrti, or pious activities knowingly performed. Then, sraddha, faith, our inner attraction for the universal truth comes to the surface. In this way it may develop from any stage. Even a beast may feel the tendency to serve Krishna. In Vrndavana, so many living beings; trees, beasts, and even the water have acquired their position by consciously desiring it. Although they have accepted an apparently material pose, they eternally hold that position in the service of Krishna.

WAY OF THE PILGRIM

Christian: There is one book called The Way of The Pilgrim, about a Christian who chants the name of Jesus on beads.

Sridhar Maharaj: Yes, the Catholics also use beads. Some Christians may chant the name of Christ.

Christian: This man was chanting the name of Jesus, his heart was growing soft, and he was feeling ecstasy, great love for Jesus.

Sridhar Maharaj: Then he may attain the position of Jesus, at most. It may be that in his attempt for perfection, his growth is finished there, in the eternal paraphernalia of Jesus. He may remain there. If he has found his fullest satisfaction, he is fated to be there.

By the will of God, and by the powerful will of an exalted devotee, even from the impersonal Brahman effulgence one may be roused from his slumber and moved to action in devotional service. Generally, they pass long ages there in the nondifferentiated plane, satisfied with their spiritual attainment; however, in the consideration of infinite time, nothing is very great or spacious. They may remain holding that position for a long time, so many dissolutions and creations may come and go, but the possibility remains that their slumber may be broken at any time. Since time immemorial, this created world has been in existence, and so many souls are ascending to the Brahman effulgence and again descending. So, even in the midst of the infinite Brahman effulgence, some souls are coming out. It is a question of infinity, so the position of Jesus may be considered as eternal, and the time may come when Jesus himself may be converted into Vaisnavism. It is not impossible.

JESUS: DYNAMIC OR STATIC?

Christian: Do you think that Jesus had awareness of Krishna as the Personality of Godhead?

Sridhar Maharaj: When his inner attainment is most closely detected, then we are bound to say that in the course of his eternal life, there is some possibility of his achieving Krishna.

Christian: I don't understand.

Sridhar Maharaj: Is Jesus stagnant or progressive? Where he has reached, is that finished forever, or is he dynamic?

Christian: Christians will say that he has full knowledge.

Sridhar Maharaj: So, is he stagnant there, finally fixed? Is that Jesus' position? Do the bishops say that his position is final? Does he have a progressive life? Or is Jesus alone barred from making further progress? Is he a member of the dynamic world? Or the stagnant world?

So, this is the nature of the infinite. Being finite, we are going to deal with the infinite? That is our ludicrous tendency. It is ludicrous for us to deal with the infinite.

Why is Krishna considered to be the Absolute Truth? This you should inquire about in a scientific way, step by step. As I have recommended, you should go on reading about that in the Sri Krishna Samhita, and the Brhad Bhagavatamrta. You should try to follow very minutely the dynamic development of theism as it is presented there.

REINCARNATION—TRANSMIGRATION

Christian: As I understand it, reincarnation means that a soul may regress into a lower species by performing sinful acts. But how does it benefit a soul to be punished by taking birth in the animal species if later he has no recollection of this?

Sridhar Maharaj: Sometimes it is necessary for doctors to make a patient unconscious. Sometimes a dacoit is imprisoned and put under chains. When his movements will be detrimental to society, he is confined in a cell and chained.So, sometimes it is necessary to take away one's independence, his voluntary action. By suffering the reactions to his previous karma, one may be relieved; then again he may be given voluntary action. When by his voluntary will a soul has done so many misdeeds and acquired so many reactions, it is necessary that his freewill be stopped temporarily. He will be allowed to suffer the reactions of his previous sins, and then again some freedom will be given to him so that he may take the proper course which is useful for him. As long as a drunkard is a drunkard, when he is expected to do some mischief to the environment, he should be confined. And when the madness of drinking is gone, then he will be released and allowed to move freely.

"DO UNTO OTHERS" INCLUDES ANIMALS

Christian: Christians generally don't accept that animals have souls.

Sridhar Maharaj: Jesus did not care to bring his followers within that conception. He saw that they were accustomed to eating animals and fish, so he did not want to embarrass them with all these questions. He thought they should begin theistic life, and when again they are able to consider these points, at that time they may be given this installment.

Life is also present within the nonhuman species, and it is no less qualified than the human position, but in the course of the evolutionary movement of the soul, it is thrown into such a condition as the result of karma. Wherever life is present, the soul is there within. It is a common thing, but Jesus thought it would be impossible for them to adjust their understanding of the environment to such a degree. He thought to let them begin with the culture of theism, and then gradually such instruction could be given.

He told them, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is also good. But not only is the soul present there; God is also there, and everywhere. The lower species are also feeling pain and pleasure. In animals it is quite clear that when they are killed, they feel pain. So, there is life. The vibration of pain is there, consciousness is there, and the soul is a unit of pure consciousness. But the persons to whom Jesus preached were not so qualified as to extend their knowledge that far. They are not prepared for such a great amount of sacrifice in their practices. So, for those who are not prepared to sacrifice themselves to such an extent, Christianity has been given by Jesus.

Still, everything has been ordained from the same common center. Christianity has its necessity, Islam also has its necessity. There is room for such creeds in the universe. They are not unnecessary, but they hold a relative position.

Then what is the position of the Absolute Truth? When we have to inquire deeply about this, then we come to India. There it has been dealt with very extensively, with all possible conceptions of religion. So many variegated theological conceptions are found in India that a fraction of that cannot be found anywhere else in the world. But ultimately, Srimad-Bhagavatam was given as the highest conception. How? That we have to understand and follow very minutely. You should study the Brhad Bhagavatamrta and its more modern form, Sri Krishna Samhita by Bhakti Vinoda Thakur.

Christian: I have read that.

Sridhar Maharaj: But you must read it more closely, and more scrutinizingly. You must read that again and again, until you find satisfaction, and answers to all your inquiries. There, the gradation of our relationship with God is shown, explaining how from a particular stage of theism, one is forced to progress to a higher level of attainment.

Finally, since I began the discussion here with reflections on the position of Judas, I would be remiss not to include in the end an interesting piece I came  upon while researching the Search for Śrī Krishna. 

I wondered if any other scholars had expressed similar views on Judas, whereby I could give some academic backing to what is expressed above by Śrīdhar Mahāraja.

I came upon this, by Jorge Luis Borges.

Sealed with a kiss

“Three Versions of Judas

There seemed a certainty in degradation.

      T. E. Lawrence: Seven Pillars of Wisdom, CIII

In Asia Minor or in Alexandria, in the second century of our faith, when Basilides disseminated the idea that the cosmos was the reckless or evil improvisation of deficient angels, Nils Runeberg would have directed, with singular intellectual passion, one of the Gnostic conventicles. Dante would have assigned him, perhaps, a fiery grave; his name would extend the list of lesser heresiarchs, along with Satornilus and Carpocrates; some fragment of his preachings, embellished with invective, would survive in the apocryphal Liber adversus omnes haereses or would have perished when the burning of a monastery library devoured the last copy of the Syntagma. Instead, God afforded Runeberg the twentieth century and the university town of Lund. There, in 1904, he published the first edition of Kristus och Judas and, in 1909, his major book, Den hemlige Frälsaren. (Of the latter there is a German translation, made in 1912 by Emil Schering; it is called Der heimliche Heiland.)

Before essaying an examination of the aforementioned works, it is necessary to repeat that Nils Runeberg, a member of the National Evangelical Union, was deeply “religious. In the intellectual circles of Paris or even of Buenos Aires, a man of letters might well rediscover Runeberg's theses; these theses, set forth in such circles, would be frivolous and useless exercises in negligence or blasphemy. For Runeberg, they were the key to one of the central mysteries of theology; they were the subject of meditation and analysis, of historical and philological controversy, of pride, of jubilation and of terror. They justified and wrecked his life. Those who read this article should also consider that it registers only Runeberg's conclusions, not his dialectic or his proof. Someone may observe that the conclusion no doubt preceded the "proof." Who would resign himself to seeking proof of something he did not believe or whose preachment did not matter to him?

The first edition of Kristus och Judas bears the following categorical epigraph, whose meaning, years later, Nils Runeberg himself would monstrously expand: "Not one, but all of the things attributed by tradition to Judas Iscariot are false" (De Quincey, 1857). Preceded by a German, De Quincey speculated that Judas reported Jesus to the authorities in order to force him to reveal his divinity and thus ignite a vast rebellion“against the tyranny of Rome; Runeberg suggests a vindication of a metaphysical sort. Skillfully, he begins by stressing the superfluity of Judas' act. He observes (as does Robertson) that in order to identify a teacher who preached daily in the synagogue and worked miracles before gatherings of thousands of men, betrayal by an apostle is unnecessary. This, nevertheless, occurred. To suppose an error in the Scriptures is intolerable; no less intolerable is to admit an accidental happening in the most precious event in world history. Ergo, Judas' betrayal was not accidental; it was a preordained fact which has its mysterious place in the economy of redemption. Runeberg continues: The Word, when it was made flesh, passed from ubiquity to space, from eternity to history, from limitless satisfaction to change and death; in order to correspond to such a sacrifice, it was necessary that one man, in representation of all men, make a sacrifice of condign nature. Judas Iscariot was that man. Judas, alone among the apostles, sensed the secret divinity and terrible intent of Jesus. The Word had been lowered to mortal condition; Judas, a disciple of the Word, could lower himself to become an informer (the worst crime “crime in all infamy) and reside amidst the perpetual fires of Hell. The lower order is a mirror of the higher; the forms of earth correspond to the forms of Heaven; the spots on one's skin are a chart of the incorruptible constellations; Judas in some way reflects Jesus. Hence ”

“the thirty pieces of silver and the kiss; hence the suicide, in order to merit Reprobation even more. Thus Nils Runeberg elucidated the enigma of Judas.

Theologians of all confessions refuted him. Lars Peter Engström accused him of being unaware of, or omitting, the hypostatic union; Axel Borelius, of renewing the heresy of the Docetists, who denied that Jesus was human; the rigid Bishop of Lund, of contradicting the third verse of the twenty-second chapter of the gospel of St. Luke.

These varied anathemas had their influence on Runeberg, who partially rewrote the rejected book and modified its doctrine. He left the theological ground to his adversaries and set forth oblique arguments of a moral order. He admitted that Jesus, "who had at his disposal all the considerable resources which Omnipotence may offer," did not need a man to redeem all men. He then refuted those who maintain we know nothing of the inexplicable traitor; we know, he said, that he was one of the apostles, one of those chosen to announce the kingdom of heaven, to cure the sick, to clean lepers, to raise the dead and cast out demons (Matthew 10:7-8; Luke 9:1 “A man whom the Redeemer has thus distinguished merits the best interpretation we can give of his acts. To attribute his crime to greed (as some have done, citing John 12:6) is to resign oneself to the basest motive. Nils Runeberg proposes the opposite motive: a hyperbolic and even unlimited asceticism. The ascetic, for the greater glory of God, vilifies and mortifies his flesh; Judas did the same with his spirit. He renounced honor, morality, peace and the kingdom of heaven, just as others, less heroically, renounce pleasure.15 With terrible lucidity he premeditated his sins. In adultery there is usually tenderness and abnegation; in homicide, courage; in profanity and blasphemy, a certain satanic luster. Judas chose those sins untouched by any virtue: violation of trust (John 12:6) and betrayal. He acted with enormous humility, he believed himself unworthy of being good. Paul has written:

"He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord" (I Corinthians 1:31); Judas sought Hell, because the happiness of the Lord was enough for him. He thought that happiness, like morality, is a divine attribute and should not be usurped by humans.16

Many have discovered, post factum, that in Runeberg's[…]”

“happiness of the Lord was enough for him. He thought that happiness, like morality, is a divine attribute and should not be usurped by humans.16

Many have discovered, post factum, that in Runeberg's justifiable beginning lies his extravagant end and that Den hemlige Frälsaren is a mere perversion or exasperation of Kristus och Judas. Toward the end of 1907, Runeberg completed and corrected the manuscript text; almost two years went by without his sending it to the printer. In October 1909, the book appeared with a prologue (tepid to the point of being enigmatic) by the Danish Hebraist Erik Erfjord and with this perfidious epigraph: "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not" (John 1:10). The general argument is not complex, though the conclusion is monstrous. God, argues Nils Runeberg, lowered Himself to become a man for the redemption of mankind; we may conjecture that His sacrifice was perfect, not invalidated or attenuated by any omission. To limit what He underwent to the agony of one afternoon on the cross is blasphemous.17 To maintain he was a man and incapable of sin involves a contradiction; the “the attributes of impeccabilitas and of humanitas are not compatible. Kemnitz admits that the Redeemer could feel fatigue, cold, embarrassment, hunger and thirst; we may also admit that he could sin and go astray. The famous text "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" (Isaiah 53:2-3) is, for many, a future vision of the Saviour at the moment of his death; for others (for example, for Hans Lassen Martensen), a refutation of the beauty which vulgar opinion attributes to Christ; for Runeberg, the punctual prophesy not of a moment but of the whole atrocious future, in time and in eternity, of the Word made flesh. God made Himself totally a man but a man to the point of infamy, a man to the point of reprobation and the abyss. To save us, He could have chosen any of the destinies  which make up the complex web of history; He could have been Alexander or Pythagoras or Rurik or Jesus; He chose the vilest destiny of all: He was Judas.

In vain the bookshops of Stockholm and Lund proposed this revelation to the public. The incredulous considered it, a priori, an insipid and laborious theological game, the theologians scorned it. Runeberg sensed in this ecumenical indifference an almost miraculous confirmation. God had ordained this indifference; God did not want His terrible secret divulged on earth. Runeberg understood that the hour had not yet arrived. He felt that ancient and divine maledictions were converging upon him; he remembered Elijah and Moses, who on the mountain top covered their faces in order not to see God; Isaiah, who was terrified when he saw the One whose glory fills the earth; Saul, whose eyes were struck blind on the road to Damascus; the rabbi Simeon ben Azai, who saw Paradise and died; the famous sorcerer John of Viterbo, who became mad when he saw the Trinity; the Midrashim, who abhor the impious who utter the Shem Hamephorash, the Secret Name of God. Was he not perhaps guilty of that dark crime? Would this[ “Would this not be the blasphemy against the Spirit, the one never to be forgiven (Matthew 12:31)? Valerius Soranus died for having divulged the hidden name of Rome; what infinite punishment would be his for having discovered and divulged the horrible name of God?

Drunk with insomnia and vertiginous dialectic, Nils Runeberg wandered through the streets of Malmo, begging at the top of his voice that he be granted the grace of joining his Redeemer in Hell.

He died of a ruptured aneurysm on the first of March, 1912. The heresiologists will perhaps remember him; to the concept of the Son, which seemed exhausted, he added the complexities of evil and misfortune.

Translated by J. E. I.”

Excerpt From: Jorge Luis Borges. “Labyrinths.” 

For those interested in the original Spanish version, here it is.

Tres versiones de Judas

[Cuento. Texto completo.]

Jorge Luis Borges

---

There seemed a certainity in degradation. 
-T. E. Lawrence: Seven Pillars of Wisdom, ciii
 

En el Asia Menor o en Alejandría, en el segundo siglo de nuestra fe, cuando Basílides publicaba que el cosmos era una temeraria o malvada improvisación de ángeles deficientes, Niels Runeberg hubiera dirigido, con singular pasión intelectual, uno de los coventículos gnósticos. Dante le hubiera destinado, tal vez, un sepulcro de fuego; su nombre aumentaría los catálogos de heresiarcas menores, entre Satornilo y Carpócrates; algún fragmento de sus prédicas, exonerado de injurias, perduraría en el apócrifo Liber adversus omnes haereses o habría perecido cuando el incendio de una biblioteca monástica devoró el último ejemplar del Syntagma. En cambio, Dios le deparó el siglo veinte y la ciudad universitaria de Lund. Ahí, en 1904, publicó la primera edición de Kristus och Judas; ahí, en 1909, su libro capital Den hemlige Frälsaren. (Del último hay versión alemana, ejecutada en 1912 por Emili Schering; se llama Der heimliche Heiland.)

Antes de ensayar un examen de los precitados trabajos, urge repetir que Nils Runeberg, miembro de la Unión Evangélica Nacional, era hondamente religioso. En un cenáculo de París o aun en Buenos Aires, un literato podría muy bien redescubir las tesis de Runeberg; esas tesis, propuestas en un cenáculo, serían ligeros ejercicios inútiles de la negligencia o de la blasfemia. Para Runeberg, fueron la clave que descifra un misterio central de la teología; fueron materia de meditación y análisis, de controversia histórica y filológica, de soberbia, de júbilo y de terror. Justificaron y desbarataron su vida. Quienes recorran este artículo, deben asimismo considerar que no registra sino las conclusiones de Runeberg, no su dialéctica y sus pruebas. Alguien observará que la conclusión precedió sin duda a las “pruebas”. ¿Quién se resigna a buscar pruebas de algo no creído por él o cuya prédica no le importa?

La primera edición de Kristus och Judas lleva este categórico epígrafe, cuyo sentido, años después, monstruosamente dilataría el propio Nils Runeberg: No una cosa, todas las cosas que la tradición atribuye a Judas Iscariote son falsas (De Quincey, 1857). Precedido por algún alemán, De Quincey especuló que Judas entregó a Jesucristo para forzarlo a declarar su divinidad y a encender una vasta rebelión contra el yugo de Roma; Runeberg sugiere una vindicación de índole metafísica. Hábilmente, empieza por destacar la superfluidad del acto de Judas. Observa (como Robertson) que para identificar a un maestro que diariamente predicaba en la sinagoga y que obraba milagros ante concursos de miles de hombres, no se requiere la traición de un apóstol. Ello, sin embargo, ocurrió. Suponer un error en la Escritura es intolerable; no menos tolerable es admitir un hecho casual en el más precioso acontecimiento de la historia del mundo. Ergo, la traición de Judas no fue casual; fue un hecho prefijado que tiene su lugar misterioso en la economía de la redención. Prosigue Runeberg: El Verbo, cuando fue hecho carne, pasó de la ubicuidad al espacio, de la eternidad a la historia, de la dicha sin límites a la mutación y a la carne; para corresponder a tal sacrificio, era necesario que un hombre, en representación de todos los hombres, hiciera un sacrificio condigno. Judas Iscariote fue ese hombre. Judas, único entre los apóstoles, intuyó la secreta divinidad y el terrible propósito de Jesús. El Verbo se había rebajado a mortal; Judas, discípulo del Verbo, podía rebajarse a delator (el peor delito que la infamia soporta) y ser huésped del fuego que no se apaga. El orden inferior es un espejo del orden superior; las formas de la tierra corresponden a las formas del cielo; las manchas de la piel son un mapa de las incorruptibles constelaciones; Judas refleja de algún modo a Jesús. De ahí los treinta dineros y el beso; de ahí la muerte voluntaria, para merecer aun más la Reprobación. Así dilucidó Nils Runeberg el enigma de Judas.

Los teólogos de todas las confesiones lo refutaron. Lars Peter Engström lo acusó de ignorar, o de preterir, la unión hipostática; Axel Borelius, de renovar la herejía de los docetas, que negaron la humanidad de Jesús; el acerado obispo de Lund, de contradecir el tercer versículo del capítulo 22 del Evangelio de San Lucas.

Estos variados anatemas influyeron en Runeberg, que parcialmente reescribió el reprobado libro y modificó su doctrina. Abandonó a sus adversarios el terreno teológico y propuso oblicuas razones de orden moral. Admitió que Jesús, «que disponía de los considerables recursos que la Omnipotencia puede ofrecer», no necesitaba de un hombre para redimir a todos los hombres. Rebatió, luego, a quienes afirman que nada sabemos del inexplicable traidor; sabemos, dijo, que fue uno de los apóstoles, uno de los elegidos para anunciar el reino de los cielos, para sanar enfermos, para limpiar leprosos, para resucitar muertos y para echar fuera demonios (Mateo 10: 7-8; Lucas 9: 1). Un varón a quien ha distinguido así el Redentor merece de nosotros la mejor interpretación de sus actos. Imputar su crimen a la codicia (como lo han hecho algunos, alegando a Juan 12: 6) es resignarse al móvil más torpe. Nils Runeberg propone el móvil contrario: un hiperbólico y hasta ilimitado ascetismo. El asceta, para mayor gloria de Dios, envilece y mortifica la carne; Judas hizo lo propio con el espíritu. Renunció al honor, al bien, a la paz, al reino de los cielos, como otros, menos heroicamente, al placer1. Premeditó con lucidez terrible sus culpas. En el adulterio suelen participar la ternura y la abnegación; en el homicidio, el coraje; en las profanaciones y la blasfemia, cierto fulgor satánico. Judas eligió aquellas culpas no visitadas por ninguna virtud: el abuso de confianza (Juan 12: 6) y la delación. Obró con gigantesca humildad, se creyó indigno de ser bueno. Pablo ha escrito: El que se gloria, gloríese en el Señor (I Corintios 1: 31); Judas buscó el Infierno, porque la dicha del Señor le bastaba. Pensó que la felicidad, como el bien, es un atributo divino y que no deben usurparlo los hombres2.

Muchos han descubierto, post factum, que en los justificables comienzos de Runeberg está su extravagante fin y que Den hemlige Frälsaren es una mera perversión o exasperación de Kristus och Judas. A fines de 1907, Runeberg terminó y revisó el texto manuscrito; casi dos años transcurrieron sin que lo entregara a la imprenta. En octubre de 1909, el libro apareció con un prólogo (tibio hasta lo enigmático) del hebraísta dinamarqués Erik Erfjord y con este pérfido epígrafe: En el mundo estaba y el mundo fue hecho por él, y el mundo no lo conoció (Juan 1: 10). El argumento general no es complejo, si bien la conclusión es monstruosa. Dios, arguye Nils Runeberg, se rebajó a ser hombre para la redención del género humano; cabe conjeturar que fue perfecto el sacrificio obrado por él, no invalidado o atenuado por omisiones. Limitar lo que padeció a la agonía de una tarde en la cruz es blasfematorio3. Afirmar que fue hombre y que fue incapaz de pecado encierra contradicción; los atributos de impeccabilitas y de humanitas no son compatibles. Kemnitz admite que el Redentor pudo sentir fatiga, frío, turbación, hambre y sed; también cabe admitir que pudo pecar y perderse. El famoso texto Brotará como raíz de tierra sedienta; no hay buen parecer en él, ni hermosura; despreciado y el último de los hombres; varón de dolores, experimentado en quebrantos (Isaías 53: 2-3), es para muchos una previsión del crucificado, en la hora de su muerte; para algunos (verbigracia, Hans Lassen Martensen), una refutación de la hermosura que el consenso vulgar atribuye a Cristo; para Runeberg, la puntual profecía no de un momento sino de todo el atroz porvenir, en el tiempo y en la eternidad, del Verbo hecho carne. Dios totalmente se hizo hombre hasta la infamia, hombre hasta la reprobación y el abismo. Para salvarnos, pudo elegir cualquiera de los destinos que traman la perpleja red de la historia; pudo ser Alejandro o Pitágoras o Rurik o Jesús; eligió un ínfimo destino: fue Judas.

En vano propusieron esa revelación las librerías de Estocolmo y de Lund. Los incrédulos la consideraron, a priori, un insípido y laborioso juego teológico; los teólogos la desdeñaron. Runeberg intuyó en esa indiferencia ecuménica una casi milagrosa confirmación. Dios ordenaba esa indiferencia; Dios no quería que se propalara en la tierra Su terrible secreto. Runeberg comprendió que no era llegada la hora: Sintió que estaban convergiendo sobre él antiguas maldiciones divinas; recordó a Elías y a Moisés, que en la montaña se taparon la cara para no ver a Dios; a Isaías, que se aterró cuando sus ojos vieron a Aquel cuya gloria llena la tierra; a Saúl, cuyos ojos quedaron ciegos en el camino de Damasco; al rabino Simeón ben Azaí, que vio el Paraíso y murió; al famoso hechicero Juan de Viterbo, que enloqueció cuando pudo ver a la Trinidad; a los Midrashim, que abominan de los impíos que pronuncian el Shem Hamephorash, el Secreto Nombre de Dios. ¿No era él, acaso, culpable de ese crimen oscuro? ¿No sería ésa la blasfemia contra el Espíritu, la que no será perdonada (Mateo 12: 31)? Valerio Sorano murió por haber divulgado el oculto nombre de Roma; ¿qué infinito castigo sería el suyo, por haber descubierto y divulgado el horrible nombre de Dios?

Ebrio de insomnio y de vertiginosa dialéctica, Nils Runeberg erró por las calles de Malmö, rogando a voces que le fuera deparada la gracia de compartir con el Redentor el Infierno.

Murió de la rotura de un aneurisma, el primero de marzo de 1912. Los heresiólogos tal vez lo recordarán; agregó al concepto del Hijo, que parecía agotado, las complejidades del mal y del infortunio.

---

1. Borelius interroga con burla: ¿Por qué no renunció a renunciar? ¿Por qué no a renunciar a renunciar?

2. Euclydes da Cunha, en un libro ignorado por Runeberg, anota que para el heresiarca de Canudos, Antonio Conselheiro, la virtud «era una casi impiedad». El lector argentino recordará pasajes análogos en la obra de Almafuerte. Runeberg publicó, en la hoja simbólica Sju insegel, un asiduo poema descriptivo, El agua secreta; las primeras estrofas narran los hechos de un tumultuoso día; las últimas, el hallazgo de un estanque glacial; el poeta sugiere que la perduración de esa agua silenciosa corrige nuestra inútil vio-lencia y de algún modo la permite y la absuelve. El poema concluye así: El agua de la selva es feliz; podemos ser malvados y dolorosos.

3. Maurice Abramowicz observa: “Jésus, d'aprés ce scandinave, a toujours le beau rôle; ses déboires, grâce à la science des typographes, jouissent d'une réputabon polyglotte; sa résidence de trente-trois ans parmi les humains ne fut en somme, qu'une villégiature”. Erfjord, en el tercer apéndice de la Christelige Dogmatik refuta ese pasaje. Anota que la crucifixión de Dios no ha cesado, porque lo acontecido una sola vez en el tiempo se repite sin tregua en la eternidad. Judas, ahora, sigue cobrando las monedas de plata; sigue besando a Jesucristo; sigue arrojando las monedas de plata en el templo; sigue anudando el lazo de la cuerda en el campo de sangre. (Erlord, para justificar esa afirmación, invoca el último capítulo del primer tomo de la Vindicación de la eternidad, de Jaromir Hladík).

FIN

---

---

---

---